As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their "great houses," massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories high. Archaeologists have been trying to determine how the buildings were used. While there is still no universally agreed upon explanation, there are three competing theories.
One theory holds that the Chaco structures were purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. Supporters of this theory have interpreted Chaco great houses as earlier versions of the architecture seen in more recent Southwest societies. In particular, the Chaco houses appear strikingly similar to the large, well-known "apartment buildings" at Taos, New Mexico,in which many people have been living for centuries.
A second theory contends that the Chaco structures were used to store food supplies. One of the main crops of the Chaco people was grain maize, which could be stored for long periods of time without spoiling and could serve as a long-lasting supply of food. The supplies of maize had to be stored somewhere, and the size of the great houses would make them very suitable for the purpose.
A third theory proposes that houses were used as ceremonial centers. Close to one house, called Pueblo Alto, archaeologists identified an enormous mound formed by a pile of old material. Excavations of the mound revealed deposits containing a surprisingly large number of broken pots. This finding has been interpreted as evidence that people gathered at Pueblo Alto for special ceremonies. At the ceremonies, they ate festive meals and then discarded the pots in which the meals had been prepared or served. Such ceremonies have been documented for other Native American cultures.
Word Count: 257
The reading and the lecture have conflicting views on what was the purpose of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. The former provides threes theories of supposed to be the building roles. The latter, however, says that the arguments in the reading are not convincing.
First, the lecturer claims that the outside of Chao structures looks like they were residential. However, the inside of the building shows another story. In the Chao there are only few fireplaces in each house, which explain that only few people could have lived there not hundreds of tenants as the reading suggests. Hence, the professor opposes the author's point that Chaco structures were home for hundreds of people in each house.
Second, the lecturer contends that the evidence from the ruins provides no trace of grains like maize, also there is also no presence of containers. If these buildings were the storage for foods, archeologists would have found some remains of grains however there are none at the site. As a result, the lecturer refutes the writer's point that these houses were used as grain stocks.
Finally, the speaker argues that presence of remains of pots on the sites can't just prove that these houses were used as events venues. He points out that in the structures their numerous construction materials like bricks and sand. It is probably possible that the pots seen there are trash of construction workers not the pots used in ceremonies. Consequently, he challenges the argument made in the reading that these Chaco houses were used as events centers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 181, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...s of supposed to be the building roles. The latter, however, says that the argument...
^^^
Line 8, column 75, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...resence of remains of pots on the sites cant just prove that these houses were used ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, look, second, so, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1301.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04263565891 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45171200864 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.53488372093 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 392.4 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.6243260325 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 92.9285714286 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4285714286 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07142857143 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.14389941473 0.272083759551 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0496841789324 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0386792931683 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0852849183843 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0212687828147 0.0443174109184 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.